Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 10, MANILA

GAIL L. AVILA,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 12345


For: Specific Performance

SPS. CLARMANETTE AND


LLOYD APOSTO,
Defendants.
X-----------------------X

ANSWER

COME NOW the defendants, through the undersigned counsel, to this Honorable

Court, by way of Answer to the complaint in the above-entitled case, most respectfully

aver that:

1. They admit the allegations in paragraphs numbered 1 to 6 of the complaint;

2. They specifically deny the allegations in paragraphs numbered 7, 8, 9, and 10

to the effect that the herein defendants refused to cede, transfer, and convey the subject

lot to the plaintiff, and to cause the transfer of the certificate of title in the name of the

latter for the reason that herein defendants had already executed in favor of the plaintiff

the deed of absolute sale covering the subject lot, as evidenced by a copy thereof, which

was already attached to the complaint as ANNEX “A” thereof; and, in addition, herein

defendants had already handed over to the plaintiff the Owner’s Duplicate Copy of the

Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-167, covering the lot in question, as proved by

her acknowledgment receipt thereof, copy of which is attached hereto and marked as

ANNEX “1;”

3. They have no more obligation to cause the transfer and registration of the

subject lot in the name of the plaintiff inasmuch as the herein defendants had already
Page 2
Answer

executed in her favor the deed of absolute sale covering the subject lot; and, in addition,

they had likewise turned over to her the Owners Duplicate Copy of OCT No. 0-167

immediately after they had got hold of the same;

4. They specifically deny the allegations in paragraphs numbered 11 and 12 of the

complaint for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof; and,

5. For the filing of this baseless and unjustified complaint, herein defendants

were compelled to engage the services of counsel, for a fee; and for which, they

committed to pay the sum of P50,000.00, as acceptance fee, plus an honorarium in the

sum of P3,000.00 per court appearance; and, in addition, to incur litigation expenses in an

amount not less than P2,000.00.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of the defendants and against the

plaintiff:

1. Ordering the dismissal of the complaint in the above-entitled case;

2. Ordering the plaintiff to pay the herein defendants the sum of P50,000.00, as

for attorney’s fee, plus an honorarium of P3,000.00 per court appearance of their counsel;

and, to pay the costs of suit.

3. Further, defendants pray for such other relief, just and equitable, under the

premises.
Page 3
Answer

Quezon City, Philippines, for the City of Manila.

October 20, 2010.

Mat U. Lungin
Counsel for the Defendants
ACS Bldg., 43 Anonas Street
Project 2, Quezon City
Roll of Attorneys No. 23456
IBP Lifetime OR No. 00789
PTR No. 012345; 1-2-10; Q.C.
MCLE Compliance No. III
Tel. No. 425-26-99
Mobile Phone No. 0921-392-63-36

Copy Furnished: (By Registered Mail)

Atty. _______________
Counsel for the Plaintiff
___________________
___________________

EXPLANATION
(In Compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Court)

Service of the foregoing Answer upon the plaintiff was done by registered mail,
instead of personal service, for practical reason due to distance of the respective office of
parties’ respective counsel.

Mat U. Lungin